United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3998

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of South Dakota. 

Jason Paul Wood, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 21, 2009

Filed: November 23, 2009

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Jason Paul Wood pled guilty to one count of mailing threatening

communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c). Wood appeals his sentence of 53

months’ imprisonment. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. §

3742, this court affirms.

I.
1

 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

-2-

While incarcerated, Wood sent threatening letters to a federal judge. A

competency examination found him sane and responsible for his acts. 

During a plea hearing, the district court1

 discussed with Wood his mental

health. The court also reviewed a 28-page report submitted by defense counsel,

detailing Wood’s psychiatric history and current mental capacity. 

At sentencing, the district court stated that by the offense level and criminal

history, Wood’s advisory guideline range was 51 to 63 months. The court then

sentenced him to 53 months, finding no basis for a variance. The court also explained

that Wood, with greater criminal-history points, received a longer sentence than a codefendant. Wood appeals, arguing that the district court erred by failing to consider

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and imposing a substantively unreasonable

sentence. 

II.

This court reviews sentencing determinations under a deferential abuse of

discretion standard, first ensuring that the district court committed no significant

procedural error. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009)

(en banc), citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Procedural error

includes failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors or adequately explain the chosen

sentence. Id. Because Wood did not object at sentencing, this court reviews only for

plain error. United States v. Phelps, 536 F.3d 862, 865 (8th Cir. 2008). To trigger

plain error review, a defendant must first show an error. Id. 

Wood contends that the district court failed to consider the relevant § 3553(a)

factors. Although a court is not required to recite the § 3553(a) factors mechanically,
-3-

it must be clear from the record that the district court considered them in sentencing.

See United States v. Left Hand Bull, 477 F.3d 518, 521 (8th Cir. 2006). A court

adequately addresses the factors if it references at least some of the considerations in

§ 3553(a). See United States v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir. 2008). This court

reviews the entire record, not merely the district court’s sentencing statements. See

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357-58 (2007); United States v. Franklin, 397

F.3d 604, 607 (8th Cir. 2005). 

The district court here considered Wood’s mental characteristics under §

3553(a)(1). The court stated on the record that it had read the mental competency

examination, defense counsel’s report, and the Presentence Report, in addition to

discussing with Wood his mental health history. See United States v. Miles, 499 F.3d

906, 909 (8th Cir. 2007) (this court presumes that a district court considered specific

§ 3553(a) factors where it hears argument about them). The district court also

discussed Wood’s § 3553(a)(6) disparity argument at sentencing, noting his codefendant’s lesser criminal-history points. Based on the entire record, the district

court adequately considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors. 

Wood nonetheless maintains that the district court should have explicitly

referred, at sentencing, to his psychiatric history. However, “not every reasonable

argument advanced by a defendant requires a specific rejoinder by the judge.” Gray,

533 F.3d at 944. See also Franklin, 397 F.3d at 606 (“there is no requirement that the

district court make specific findings relating to each of the factors considered”). In

this case, the district court had reviewed Wood’s mental health history and specifically

addressed Wood’s disparity claim, providing sufficient reasoning to support

imposition of the sentence. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 356 (noting that a court applying the

guidelines need not provide a lengthy explanation of its reasoning). No error occurred

in this case. 
-4-

III.

Wood next argues that his 53-month sentence is substantively unreasonable

because it is greater than necessary to promote the goals of § 3553(a). This court

reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall,

552 U.S. at 51. A sentence within the sentencing guidelines is presumptively

reasonable on appeal. United States v. Toothman, 543 F.3d 967, 970 (8th Cir. 2008).

Wood asserts that his sentence is unreasonable because his letters posed no

harm to the judge as he lacked the ability to carry out his threats. Wood’s assertion

ignores the conduct at issue. Threats themselves create emotional turmoil in the lives

of the recipients, causing intimidation the law attempts to prevent. United States v.

Austad, 519 F.3d 431, 436 n.6 (8th Cir. 2008). Further, the district court was aware

that Wood had sent multiple threatening letters. It was, therefore, reasonable to

conclude that Wood’s threats would increase if he were not deterred by a guidelines

sentence. See id.

Wood also states that his history of mental illness justifies a downward

variance. See United States v. Myers, 503 F.3d 676, 687 (8th Cir. 2007). However,

Wood has not shown that the district court failed to consider his mental health history.

Although not specifically addressing his mental health at sentencing, the court clearly

knew about Wood’s psychiatric history. The district court did not abuse its discretion

by sentencing near the bottom of the guidelines range. 

IV.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________